throbber

`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`Fred Norton (CA SBN 224725)
`fnorton@nortonlaw.com
`Nathan Walker (CA SBN 206128)
`nwalker@nortonlaw.com
`Bree Hann (CA SBN 215695)
`bhann@nortonlaw.com
`Gil Walton (CA SBN 324133)
`gwalton@nortonlaw.com
`THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
`299 Third Street, Suite 200
`Oakland, CA 94607
`Telephone: (510) 906-4900
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`PATREON, INC.
`
`BRAYDEN STARK, JUDD OOSTYEN,
`KEVIN BLACK, and MARYANN OWENS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS
`
`
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date: September 9, 2022
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero
`
`
`
`PATREON, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD, PLEASE
`TAKE NOTICE that on September 9, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard,
`in Courtroom F, 15th Floor of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102,
`Defendant Patreon, Inc. (“Patreon”) will, and hereby does, move for an order dismissing the Complaint
`in this case (Dkt. 1) in its entirety with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for
`failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion; the following memorandum of points
`and authorities; Patreon’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) and its attached supporting Declaration
`of Tyler Layton submitted herewith; the Complaint (Dkt. 1); any evidence or argument presented at the
`hearing on the motion; and any other matters the Court deems proper.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`Patreon moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint in
`this case in its entirety with prejudice.
`
`1
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Legal Standard ................................................................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ VPPA Claims ........................................................ 5
`1. Overview of the VPPA ............................................................................................... 5
`2. Patreon Is Not a “Video Tape Service Provider” ....................................................... 6
`3. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Patreon Disclosed Their Identities ....................................... 9
`4. Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege Patreon “Knowingly” Disclosed
`PII to Facebook .......................................................................................................... 9
`5. The VPPA, on Its Face and as Applied to Patreon, Violates the First
`Amendment to the United States Constitution ......................................................... 10
`a.
`The VPPA, on Its Face, Violates the First Amendment .......................... 11
`b.
`The VPPA, as Applied in this Case, Violates the First Amendment ....... 13
`i.
`The VPPA is a content- and speaker based regulation of
`non-commercial speech and thus it is subject to strict scrutiny ... 13
`The VPPA fails to satisfy strict scrutiny on the alleged
`facts of this lawsuit ...................................................................... 16
`Even if the VPPA regulates commercial speech subject to
`intermediate scrutiny, it fails to withstand scrutiny ..................... 18
`Plaintiffs Do Not State A Claim For Violation of the UCL or the CLRA....................... 20
`1. Plaintiffs Do Not State a UCL Claim Based on Patreon’s Alleged
`Disclosure of Information to Facebook .................................................................... 21
`2. Plaintiffs Do Not State a UCL or CLRA Claim Based on Patreon’s
`Alleged Failure to Disclose ...................................................................................... 23
`Plaintiffs’ Claim for Unjust Enrichment Should Be Dismissed ...................................... 24
`D.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,
`517 U.S. 484 (1996) ............................................................................................................................. 19
`Abuelhawa v. Santa Clara Univ.,
`529 F. Supp. 3d 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ............................................................................................... 24
`Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal.,
`535 U.S. 234 (2002) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................... 5, 10, 25
`Austin-Spearman v. AMC Network Ent. LLC,
`98 F. Supp. 3d 662 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................................................................. 14, 18
`Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A.,
`8 Cal. App. 5th 935, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 504 (2017) ................................................................................ 25
`Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Pol. Consultants, Inc.,
`140 S.Ct. 2335 (2020) .......................................................................................................................... 14
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) ............................................................................................................................. 14
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Berger v. City of Seattle,
`569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................. 14
`Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod. Corp.,
`463 U.S. 60 (1983) ............................................................................................................................... 15
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ........................................................................................... 24, 25
`Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n,
`564 U.S. 786 (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 15, 17
`Cappello v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-06678-RS, 2019 WL 11687705 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019) ................................................ 22
`Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.,
`447 U.S. 557 (1980) ............................................................................................................................. 19
`Collins v. eMachines, Inc.,
`202 Cal. App. 4th 249 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 24
`Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn,
`420 U.S. 469 (1975) ............................................................................................................................. 13
`
`ii
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`Crittenden v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 5:21-CV-04322-EJD, 2022 WL 2132224 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) ............................................. 9
`Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.,
`691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................. 21
`De Havilland v. FX Networks, LLC,
`21 Cal. App. 5th 845, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 625 (2018) .............................................................................. 25
`Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 5, 7, 9, 12
`Ellis v. Cartoon Network, Inc.,
`803 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 14, 18
`ESG Cap. Partners, LP v. Stratos,
`828 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................. 25
`Forsyth Cnty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,
`505 U.S. 123 (1992) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`Garrison v. Louisiana,
`379 U.S. 64 (1964) ............................................................................................................................... 12
`Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
`418 U.S. 323 (1974) ....................................................................................................................... 13, 17
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 109 (2011) .......................................................................... 25
`Hunt v. City of Los Angeles,
`638 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................... 15
`IMDb.com Inc. v. Becerra,
`962 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... Passim
`In re Google Android Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`No 11-MD-02264 JSW, 2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ............................................ 23
`In re Google Inc. St. View Elec. Commc’ns Litig.,
`794 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................................... 22
`In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc.,
`26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C. 1998).................................................................................................. 18
`In re Hulu Priv. Litig.,
`86 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 6, 9
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`No. 11-md-2250, 2011 WL 4403963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011)........................................................ 22
`In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`827 F.3d 262 (3d Cr. 2016) .................................................................................................................... 9
`In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`iii
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`Italian Colors Rest. v. Becerra,
`878 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................... 19, 20
`Janda v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.,
`No. C 05-03729 JSW, 2009 WL 667206 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) .................................................. 21
`Klein v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-08570-LHK, 2022 WL 141561 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022) ............................................... 24
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) ......................................................................................................................... 21
`LaCourt v. Specific Media, Inc.,
`No. SACV 10-1256 GW JCGX, 2011 WL 1661532 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2011) ................................. 23
`Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc.,
`771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended ............................................................................................ 7
`Low v. Linkedin Corp.,
`2011 WL 5509848 (N.D. Cal. Nov.11, 2011) ..................................................................................... 23
`McBride v. Boughton,
`123 Cal. App. 4th 379 (2004) .............................................................................................................. 25
`McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC,
`489 F. Supp. 3d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ................................................................................................. 12
`Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`45 Cal. 4th 634 (2009) ......................................................................................................................... 24
`MicroTechnologies, LLC v. Autonomy, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-02220-JCS, 2017 WL 1848470 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2017) ................................................ 25
`Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.,
`497 U.S. 1 (1990) ................................................................................................................................. 12
`Millare v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`No. CV 21-8398 PA (KESX), 2022 WL 1434109 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022) ...................................... 10
`Mollett v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 5:11-CV-01629-EJD, 2012 WL 3731542 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012) ........................................ 6, 9
`New York v. Ferber,
`458 U.S. 747 (1982) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`Papasan v. Allain,
`478 U.S. 265 (1986) ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Persona Cosms., Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.,
`No. 221CV04644JVSKES, 2021 WL 6103348 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021) .......................................... 25
`R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.,
`505 U.S. 377 (1992) ....................................................................................................................... 14, 17
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`iv
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`Resnick v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc.,
`No. CV1600593BROPJWX, 2017 WL 1531192 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (dismissing ................... 10
`Rhynes v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 10-5619 SC, 2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) ........................................................... 7
`Robbins v. Plushcare, Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-03444-MMC, 2022 WL 2988344 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2022) ........................................... 25
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc.,
`540 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................................... 22
`S&S Worldwide, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`509 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................................... 10
`Salenfriend v. Green Tree Servicing LLC,
`No. C-14-03251(EDL), 2014 WL 12647745 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2014) ............................................. 9
`Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,
`467 U.S. 20 (1984) ............................................................................................................................... 14
`Shin v. ICON Found.,
`No. 20-CV-07363-WHO, 2021 WL 6117508 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2021) ........................................... 25
`Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co.,
`443 U.S. 97 (1979) ............................................................................................................................... 17
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) ........................................................................................................... 13, 14, 19, 20
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 5
`State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) ............................................................................................................................. 15
`Svenson v. Google Inc.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 717 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................... 22
`Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton,
`44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002) ................................................................................................................... 18
`The Fla. Star v. B.J.F.,
`491 U.S. 524 (1989) ................................................................................................................. 12, 13, 18
`U.D. Registry Inc. v. State of California,
`144 Cal. App. 4th 405 (2006) .............................................................................................................. 15
`United States v. Hansen,
`25 F.4th 1103 (9th Cir. 2022) .............................................................................................................. 11
`United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc.,
`529 U.S. 803 (2000) ....................................................................................................................... 16, 17
`United States v. Stanko,
`491 F.3d 408 (8th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`v
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`United States v. Stevens,
`559 U.S. 460 (2010) ....................................................................................................................... 11, 13
`Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC,
`847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................................. 21
`Victory Processing, LLC v. Fox,
`937 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................................. 17
`Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc.,
`328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................... 5
`Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party,
`552 U.S. 442 (2008) ............................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Statutes
`8 U.S.C. § 1324 ........................................................................................................................................ 11
`18 U.S.C. § 2710 .............................................................................................................................. Passim
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 .............................................................................................................. 21
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a) ......................................................................................................................... 24
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83.5 ................................................................................................................ 16, 18
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`vi
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`Defendant Patreon, Inc. moves to dismiss the claims of the four Plaintiffs here, each of whom
`alleges that Patreon unlawfully transmitted to Facebook information about videos Plaintiffs watched
`when using Patreon’s website. None of the claims has merit.
`For their claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), Plaintiffs must plead facts
`showing that Patreon is a “video tape service provider,” that Patreon disclosed the specific videos they
`watched along with information that would identify them individually, and that Patreon had actual
`knowledge it was transmitting that particular information to Facebook. Not only does the complaint
`lack any such factual allegations, documents cited in the Complaint contradict an essential element of
`the claim. But even if Plaintiffs could adequately plead a violation of the VPPA, it would not matter,
`because that law – which imposes presumed damages on the disclosure of truthful information to which
`a consumer has actually consented, without any actual injury – violates the First Amendment, both on its
`face and as applied.
`Plaintiffs’ UCL and CLRA claims fare no better. Plaintiffs cannot recover for disclosures that
`they actually consented to, as they each did here. And even if consent were lacking, Plaintiffs have
`failed to plead required facts that show they lost money or property merely because Patreon
`(purportedly) disclosed to Facebook videos they had watched, so that Facebook and Patreon could
`improve their services to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ final claim, for unjust enrichment, is not a standalone
`cause of action in California. Moreover, the Complaint once again alleges no facts to show how Patreon
`was unjustly enriched, nor any facts that would establish that Patreon could be unjustly enriched by
`conduct that Plaintiffs agreed to in Patreon’s Terms of Use.
`The Complaint fails to state a claim, and should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The gist of the case is simple: The four Plaintiffs allege that they each signed up to be Patreon
`members and Facebook users; they watched videos using the Patreon website; and Patreon, through the
`use of a software tool called Facebook Pixel, transmitted to Facebook the titles of the videos Plaintiffs
`watched, along with their Facebook user IDs. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 1-4) Plaintiffs assert that Patreon never told
`them it would disclose their viewing content to third parties, and that they never consented to such
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`disclosures. (Id. ¶ 5) Had they known, Plaintiffs say, they would have paid Patreon less, or not used
`Patreon’s services at all. (Id. ¶ 94)1
`But the Complaint is more noteworthy for what it fails to say, for what it says only in conclusory
`fashion without any factual support, and for what it says that is directly contradicted by documents that
`the Complaint expressly references, such as Patreon’s Terms of Use (“ToU”), Privacy Policy, and
`Cookie Policy. (Id. ¶¶ 47, 85) Plaintiffs’ silence on significant elements of their claim, plus the facts
`established by the actual documents they cite, tell a different story.
`Although Plaintiffs allege, in conclusory fashion, that Patreon is a “video tape service provider”
`(id. ¶¶ 2, 65), the Complaint does not contain a single allegation describing Patreon’s actual business.
`Fortunately, Patreon’s Terms of Use describe what Patreon actually does for its members. (Patreon
`Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. A (Layton Decl.) at Ex. 1 (ToU))
`“Patreon is a membership platform that enables creators to be paid by their fans.” (RJN Ex. A at
`Ex. 1 (ToU) at 1; see also RJN Ex. A at Ex. 5 (Privacy Policy) at 2 (“Patreon is a platform where
`patrons can support and engage with creators.”) A creator is someone who creates a membership page
`on Patreon to engage with their fans – known on the site as patrons – by offering “access, merchandise,
`exclusivity, and engaging experiences.” (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 (ToU) at 3-4) As the ToU explain,
`creators “can use creator tools that Patreon provides, showcase [their] creations, provide merchandise to
`patrons through Patreon’s Merch service, and receive recurring revenue from [their] page.” (Id. at 4)
`Patrons purchase memberships for specific creators on a monthly, annual, or per creation basis. (Id. at
`8-11) The fees that patrons pay for memberships go to the creators as taxable income, except for a
`percentage (currently 5-12%) that Patreon retains as a platform and payment-processing fee. (Id. at 5-6)
`In short, Patreon’s business is helping creative people connect with those who are interested in
`supporting their work, for which it charges a commission. Patreon is not in the business of “rental, sale,
`or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials.” 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2710(a)(4).
`
`
`1 Patreon denies that it discloses to Facebook what videos Patreon members watch. But this is a Rule
`12(b)(6) motion, and for this motion Patreon accepts as true the Complaint’s factual allegations, to the
`extent they are not contradicted by the documents cited in the Complaint itself.
`2
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`The Complaint alleges that each Plaintiff paid Patreon “subscription fees.” (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 19, 22,
`25, 28) With the benefit of the ToU, that allegation is more clear: each of the Plaintiffs signed up for a
`membership program to be a patron of one or more creators through the Patreon platform, and Patreon
`retained a small percentage of each payment. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 (ToU) at 5-6) In addition, each
`Plaintiff alleges that they viewed videos on the Patreon website. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 20, 23, 26, 29)
`Presumably, one or more of the creators they supported offered some form of video content to their
`patrons through their membership pages. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 at 3-4)
`Plaintiffs further allege that Patreon’s website incorporated “Pixel,” which they describe as “an
`advertising tool that allows website owners to track visitor actions on their websites for purposes of
`sending the corresponding information to Facebook.” (Dkt. 1, ¶ 41) According to Plaintiffs, “[t]hrough
`use of the Facebook Pixel, Patreon discloses to Facebook the full name of each video a User watched,
`together with the User’s FID [Facebook ID], thus linking Users’ viewing content choices and
`preferences to their Facebook profiles.” (Id. ¶ 45)
`Plaintiffs claim that they did not know about, and did not consent to, the disclosure of their
`viewing conduct to third parties. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 5, 46, 79) Patreon’s ToU and Privacy Policy say
`otherwise.2 In the Privacy Policy, Patreon disclosed the data it may collect:
`(cid:131) Through their accounts, members provide their first and last name, email address, and state
`and country of residence. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 5 at 2)
`
`(cid:131) Patreon stated that “[w]e collect information automatically as you navigate the site or
`through our third-party analytics providers.” (Id. at 5)
`(cid:131) Patreon stated that it collects “usage information such as the type of device you use to
`access Patreon, your operating system, browser type, IP address, device ID, the pages you
`visit or request, links clicked, referring sites, user interactions and your search terms.” (Id.)
`In addition, Patreon’s Privacy Policy disclosed, under the bolded heading “Information We
`Share With Third Parties,” that it would share that data with third parties like Facebook:
`
`
`
`INFORMATION WE SHARE WITH THIRD PARTIES
`… We will only share data with third parties, other than with creators, under the following
`circumstances: … with our service providers, who are companies that are contractually
`engaged with us to provide us with services, such as order fulfilment, email management,
`
`
`2 Patreon’s ToU explicitly incorporates its Privacy Policy. (RJN Ex. A at Ex. 1 at 2; see also RJN Ex. A
`at Ex. 5 at 2 (“This updated Privacy Policy … is part of our Terms of Use.”))
`3
`DEFENDANT PATREON, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03131-JCS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03131-JCS Document 21 Filed 08/05/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`analysing data trends, credit card processing, multi-currency settlement solutions, increasing
`our brand awareness and user engagement with marketing initiatives, and fraud detection and
`prevention.
`(Id. at 11 (emphasis in title in original; emphasis in body text added))
`Plaintiffs nonetheless object to Patreon’s alleged disclosure to Facebook of titles of videos they
`watched on the Patreon website, along with their Facebook IDs (“FIDs”). Plaintiffs assert, as a general
`matter, that a user’s FID is linked to their Facebook profile, “which generally contains a wide range of
`demographic and other information about the user, including pictures, personal interests, work history,
`relationship status, and other details.” (Dkt. 1, ¶ 2) But Plaintiffs nowhere allege that their own
`Facebook profiles have detailed personal information about them, or even that their Facebook profiles
`use their own names.
`Plaintiffs allege that “Patreon was aware” that its disclosures to Facebook through Pixel
`identified Plaintiffs and that “Patreon also knew” Plaintiffs’ viewing content “was disclosed to Facebook
`because Patreon programmed the Facebook Pixel into its website code knowing that Facebook would
`receive video titles and the subscriber’s FID when a user watched a video.” (Id. ¶ 71) Plaintiffs offer
`nothing else in support of their allegation that Patreon “was aware of” or “knew” what specific
`information was transmitted by the Facebook Pixel.
`As for injury, the Complaint remains true to form. Plaintiffs allege that Patreon and Facebook
`use the information from Pixel to improve the products and services they offer Plaintiffs, not in any way
`that exposes Plaintiffs publicly or causes them embarrassment. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 41-44) Plaintiffs do not allege
`fact

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket